Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Government United States Science Politics

Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change 458

mdsolar points out this report in the NY Times: An overwhelming majority of the American public, including nearly half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future. In a finding that could have implications for the 2016 presidential campaign, the poll also found that two-thirds of Americans say they are more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They are less likely to vote for candidates who question or deny the science of human-caused global warming.

Among Republicans, 48 percent said they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change, a result that Jon A. Krosnick, a professor of political science at Stanford University and an author of the survey, called "the most powerful finding" in the poll. Many Republican candidates either question the science of climate change or do not publicly address the issue.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change

Comments Filter:
  • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Friday January 30, 2015 @04:46PM (#48942715)

    Ask them what they willing to actually SACRIFICE to fix it and I bet you'll get a very different answer.

    • by AqD ( 1885732 ) on Friday January 30, 2015 @04:51PM (#48942747)

      Yes? I'm willing to sacrifice all others to fix it.

    • by TWX ( 665546 ) on Friday January 30, 2015 @04:51PM (#48942751)
      What's the sacrifice though? Having cars that either get really excellent fuel economy or run on battery power? Forcing electrical utilities to switch to separate billing for grid-tie and power consumption, so that customers that want to put solar panels on their roofs aren't shafted in order to have overnight electrical service from base-load power? Mandating emissions inspections based on original standards at the time of manufacture on all vehicles newer than 30 years, so that gross-polluting vehicles that are not running right are either fixed or taken off the road?

      Most of these things don't have all that much cost, and for some of them, they're a cost that the individual should have borne anyway.
      • by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Friday January 30, 2015 @05:09PM (#48942883) Journal

        lol.. What's the sacrifice you ask then say taking vehicles off the road as if it does not deprive anyone of anything. The problem is all the rest cost money. It costs more money than the current model. So when you raise prices, people will have less. This less means they will sacrifice something- whether it is savings, stability in electric power, a car or whatever. It will only make the world more expensive and people will have to do without. You make it sound like you can just speak it into existence and there is no repercussions. There are and there will be.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by TWX ( 665546 )
          If a vehicle is in poor repair then it shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

          Technically it's already federal law, but the states are allowed to not enforce depending on their position with the EPA. That should change.
          • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

            If a vehicle is in poor repair then it shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

            Well are YOU going to pay for them to get a new car? Most people with junkers on the road don't have them for style points. It's because they have just enough money so that they aren't using that car as their primary residence.

          • by sjames ( 1099 )

            If a vehicle is on the road in poor repair, there's a decent chance it's because the owner can't afford to fix it and needs to get to work.

          • What is a federal law? I think you need to cite that. The feds do not have jurisdiction over most vehicles once produced and sold.

            • If they did, that would be a pretty clear cut violation of the enumerated powers of the federal governments.

              At best they can set standards for new vehicles that are imported and/or sold across state lines (and do, via the NTSB) which is an enumerated power via the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. However those rules have no bearing for older or second hand vehicles.

          • I'm so thankful I live in states that either don't do inspections, or no sniff tests at least.

            I can still modify my car to have a fun exhaust, tune it for performance.

            My cars are in good repair, but I'm not wanting to be overburdened by regulations that suck performance out of my engines and make them sound like crap.

            I'm actually looking forward to soon buying a 75-76 muscle car, maybe a Trans Am....455 4-speed and with a cam replacement, and some headers and making into true dual pipes...I can get over

            • And while I live in an area that does emissions tests all of the way back to the 1967 model year, I still have long-tube headers, X-pipe, and dual exhaust on an emissions-mandated car. It passes the sniff test and the required-equipment test. I also have aftermarket mufflers that are loud on another car that needs to pass, no problems.
            • by thrich81 ( 1357561 ) on Friday January 30, 2015 @09:55PM (#48944457)

              This is going to sound harsher than intended, but ... from younger days I already have owned a couple of Trans-Ams, Corvettes, a factory 455 cubic inch Buick GS Stage 1, 69 Camaro with a L-88 engine swap, big block El Caminos, etc, all big blocks at least 400 CID and they are all crap compared to what you can get for about $30K now in a new (or much less used) Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger. The old cars weren't that fun to drive because no matter how much power the engines made (and it wasn't as much as everyone 'remembers'), the suspensions could not put the power to the road. If you really want to enjoy a ride, go buy a 2015 Mustang GT which will outrun any old muscle car and do it with full emissions equipment, safety equipment and air conditioning. By the way, if you want 500 HP, don't try it with a Pontiac 455 -- that long stroke motor was a POS -- if you have to do it the hard way with 1960's/70's tech, go with a 427/454 Chevrolet, even then the factory race engines(427-L88 and 427-ZL1) were only making about 550 horses with open headers. Oh and those mid-70's Trans-Ams couldn't take all that much horsepower anyway -- their crappy bodies with the partial subframes twisted all up under real torque, especially the T-Top cars. I was a huge muscle car guy and went through the 70's when "government regulations" killed the muscle car, but the cars now are supercars compared to the best from back then and you don't get a lungful of lead, hydrocarbons and CO from behind them. I'm convinced that this would not be the case had the government not forced the automakers to clean up. If cars can be this good and this clean now then there is no excuse for anything else to be dirty either.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          It will only make the world more expensive and people will have to do without.

          I agree that in the short term an economy has a limited total productive capacity.

          So, if an economy is at full capacity, then, in the short term, if the economy produces more solutions to global warming then it will have to produce less of something else. But that something else could be luxury watches and designer handbags.

          And it's not at all clear that absolutely all economies are at full capacity. If an economy has a bunch of scientists sitting around doing nothing because they can't find work - then pay

        • But...but...you can never run out of *other* people's money! /sarc

          This smells like a desperate attempt by the MSM to try and spin away the shellacking the greenie Ds got last year.

        • lol.. What's the sacrifice you ask then say taking vehicles off the road as if it does not deprive anyone of anything. The problem is all the rest cost money. It costs more money than the current model.

          I suggest that you stand by to find out just what it costs to not do anything.

          Besides, there is a whole litany of "Costs too much", from cleaning the air and rivers, to reducing pollution form cars, to gas mileage to electric cars, to wind power and solar power. All going to be too expensive.

          And we have cleaner air water and land, cars that get good gas mileage and low pollution and good performance, electric cars that have decent range and can beat the crap out os most vehicles, and lately ther has bee

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by microbox ( 704317 )
          There are always winners and loser when incentive structures change. The real question is who is being subsized by the status quo, and is it fair. Fighting AGW will produce winners and losers but the consensus among economists it that it will have a negligble effect on overall economic growth. That means we can move away from fossil fuels and, on average, we will still be as rich in the future even if AGW is a hoax. If it isn't a hoax, then we will be a lot richer in the future if the USA still keeps all t
      • So you would rather shaft all non-solar users by forcing the electric companies to not pay wholesale for solar providers (like they do when they buy power from other power companies) or pay retail and at least ask those using solar to help pay for the grid they are using to connect with. Thus raising non-solar rates.

        So you would rather force everyone to pay more for a car than the savings in the fuel economy??

        So you would rather put a burden on the poor who can't afford to fix their cars or buy newer ones??

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by SydShamino ( 547793 )

          >> So you would rather put a burden on the poor who can't afford to fix their cars or buy newer ones??

          Just because you're poor doesn't mean you have the right to pollute more than anyone else. The government could subsidize fixing the car, or the poor could instead try out subsidized public transportation, or the government could subsidize newer, more efficient cars. We can call it Cash for Clunkers.

          • We can call it Cash for Clunkers.

            Unless the "cash" is enough to replace the "clunker" with a reasonably new car, it's not going to work. $5K more than the clunker is worth gives you enough money to buy another clunker, and not much else....

            • Revenue neutral carbon taxes have been successfully used to reduce the amount of dirty electricity being used (by raising the price of produce), and still leave home owners with more money in their pocket. They drive economic growth (energy innovation, home modernization, grid modernization), and they also cause economic harm (fossil fuel interests are losers). When you tally up the growth and harm, they come feakily close to zero. So, on average, it costs nothing, but Koch and Koch will need a new business
          • The state government already does subsizide repairs to emissions failing cars where I live.
          • We can call it Cash for Clunkers.

            That program cost the taxpayers about $4 billion and even the most ardent environmentalists weren't impressed with the results. It also didn't improve the economy in any way as car sales over that period didn't result in a higher volume of sales (it just took away sales from previous and later months and combined them into the few months that the program was active.)

            It also destroyed capital, which is always economically destructive (google the broken window fallacy) and in fact provided a measurable loss.

            • Sigh.

              It costs the tacpayer nothing. It costs the government. The taxpayer has no influence on what the government is payin his taxes. Get a clue.

              Capital is not destroyed. It only changes the owner. Get a clue.

        • Perhaps you should fix the fact that you have poor people in your country or at least that those poor people need a car (for what actually?)

      • Forcing electrical utilities to switch to separate billing for grid-tie and power consumption, so that customers that want to put solar panels on their roofs aren't shafted in order to have overnight electrical service from base-load power?

        I think a better start would be to end NIMBY syndrome and go all nuclear. I personally live about 60 miles from the largest nuclear plant in the US, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm not sure why nuclear bothers California so much that they pay Arizona a premium for our electrons to make up for their own inadequate supply...it would be considerably cheaper if they just made their own, and they could displace their coal plants in the process.

      • What's the sacrifice though? Having cars that either get really excellent fuel economy or run on battery power? Forcing electrical utilities to switch to separate billing for grid-tie and power consumption, so that customers that want to put solar panels on their roofs aren't shafted in order to have overnight electrical service from base-load power? Mandating emissions inspections based on original standards at the time of manufacture on all vehicles newer than 30 years, so that gross-polluting vehicles that are not running right are either fixed or taken off the road?
        Most of these things don't have all that much cost, and for some of them, they're a cost that the individual should have borne anyway.

        All of the measures you've listed are too insignificant to have any real effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, it's just inconsequential feel-good posturing.

      • What's the sacrifice though? Having cars that either get really excellent fuel economy or run on battery power? Forcing electrical utilities to switch to separate billing for grid-tie and power consumption, so that customers that want to put solar panels on their roofs aren't shafted in order to have overnight electrical service from base-load power? Mandating emissions inspections based on original standards at the time of manufacture on all vehicles newer than 30 years, so that gross-polluting vehicles that are not running right are either fixed or taken off the road? Most of these things don't have all that much cost, and for some of them, they're a cost that the individual should have borne anyway.

        So basically you don't see people having to sacrifice what they want, because you expect to decide for them what they should want. Anything that begins with "forcing people to do X" or "mandating X" is the antithesis of freedom. You may argue that it's in a good cause, but you can't simply redefine sacrifice to only mean sacrifice from those desires that you prefer to impose on others.

    • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

      A lot of this really just boils down to 60s ideas of environmentalism and reducing pollution. It's just that the modern spin ads an extra level of extreme hysterics to the situation that are likely to alienate people and trigger skepticism.

      Although you are probably right. If you ask all of the apathetic types just going along or even the true blue tree huggers to really sacrifice, you will probably get a much different answer.

      That's probably why you have this whole subject wrapped in hysteria to begin with.

      • >. A lot of this really just boils down to 60s ideas of environmentalism and reducing pollution. It's just that the modern spin ads an extra level of extreme hysterics to the situation that are likely to alienate people and trigger skepticism. ...
        >. Someone thinks they need to generate a sense of urgency by any means necessary.

        Exactly. That strategy DOES get some people hyped up, but it also makes a lot of tune you out. They then miss the message that's actually potentially accurate. The other da

        • The other day I posted a bunch of examples of leading climate researchers from Stanford, UC Berkeley, and Yale making statements like "by 2010, New York City will be underwater". Well, 2010 has come and gone and NYC is still there.

          And you can bet those institutions have ignored the (probably) 30-40 years of additional evidence and have not updated their projections in any way and because some guys were wrong once you can completely ignore everything that comes from whoever they happened to work for at the time in perpetuity.

          Side note: A case could be made that in 2010 NYC was underwater...great recession and all...

          • Oh, some of them have updated it. Not long ago the Obama administration was circulating a piece with just such predictions, after having done a SEARCH AND REPLACE update to change "2010" to "2050". I kid you not.

            There is some sound research out there, but it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff because there's a lot more propaganda than there is solid science.

            Try to take a breath and have a little intellectual honesty. As you know, in these institutions updated there materials in the 1970s to ear

            • by CaptainLard ( 1902452 ) on Friday January 30, 2015 @08:59PM (#48944189)

              As you know, in these institutions updated there materials in the 1970s to early 1980s, from "OMG panic man-made ice age" to "OMG panic global warming"

              Nice myth. The "ice age panic" was one story that made Time magazine at a time when the majority of climate research indicated a warming trend due to human cause CO2 emissions.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
              http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... [ametsoc.org]
              And about 1000 other sources if you google "1970 ice age"

              I'm not going to try to convince you that AGW is a problem we should address (note I said "should be addressed", not panic over). Instead, are you afraid of something if those crazy scientists from your anecdotes get their way and the Fed institutes CO2 mitigation? Gas prices jump to $20/gallon? The government mandates CO2 trackers worn all the time? Economic disaster circa 2008?

              I'll cite the elimination of lead in pretty much everything (no economic catastrophe) and the elimination of CFC's (no economic catastrophe). Also some fun facts on how we got to a point of not worrying about acid rain anymore:

              "In 2007, total SO2 emissions were 8.9 million tons, achieving the program's long term goal ahead of the 2010 statutory deadline.[22]

              The EPA estimates that by 2010, the overall costs of complying with the program for businesses and consumers will be $1 billion to $2 billion a year, only one fourth of what was originally predicted"

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]

              So tell my why addressing CO2 emissions is a bad idea (not that you explicitly stated as much in your comments)

              • > So tell my why addressing CO2 emissions is a bad idea (not that you explicitly stated as much in your comments)

                Indeed, I've said the opposite, right here in this thread. In the thread last week I said it over and over and over, while the alarmists in the thread just couldn't hear that. To them, it has to be either believe everything you hear and panic, or complete denial. No room for thought, for considering the veracity of the claims, or considering past claims the source has made. Odd.

                There are,

      • You mean as opposed to all the other decades of the 19th through 20th century's idea of "let's just slash and burn and pollute all the ecosystems on the planet with our newfound technological power, and see how that goes for our descendants, because we don't give a rat's ass?" That genius idea that we are pretty much living by today? Remember that "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose".

    • by rossdee ( 243626 )

      Higher gasoline prices would be fine by me.

      (I walk to work)

      • of course, its people who dont use X who always want to raise taxes on X
        • I voted to raise cigarette taxes in 1988 (my first election after I turned 18). Never smoked in my life. After the election, cigarettes were $20+ per carton. My father couldn't justify spending that much money for cigarettes each week. He quit smoking after 30 years, starting when he was 15. He died 30 years later after a bout of throat cancer.
        • I use gas. I've called and written all of my congressmen to tell them they should raise the gas tax (not that that does any good). Now is a perfect time because if you raise it 25%, no one (aside from fox news et al) is going to notice the difference between $1.82 and $1.87 (gas tax is $0.18 right now). At the very least, index it to inflation.

          • you actually expect gas to stay at these low prices? I sure dont, and when they go back up to where they were 4 months ago, i dont want a 25% increase on that.

            federal gas tax is 18 cents, for the relatively few "federal" roads, that should be plenty (if they would spend the gas tax on the roads as intended instead of stealing it for other pet projects)

            what I would like to know, and i am not sure where to find it is the following

            total gas tax brought in last year

            total spending on federal roads

            I
            • when they go back up to where they were 4 months ago, i dont want a 25% increase on that.

              The gas tax was still $0.18 4 months ago. In fact, it has been since 1993. If prices went back up you'd be paying something like $3.56 instead of $3.51 with my hypothetical 25% increase. If that breaks your budget, don't be one of the morons that increases the sales rate of low mileage vehicles every time the price of gasoline dips temporarily.

              The reason you think the gas tax is enough is because we're not in a crisis yet. This isn't exactly what you wanted but perhaps you could google more than 2 minutes:

              "

    • by Bartles ( 1198017 ) on Friday January 30, 2015 @05:05PM (#48942849)
      Yeah, and if you actually read the poll, you will see when specific items are listed (tax elecricity, gasoline, tax breaks for nuclear power) they oppose them 2 to 1. Another misleading Slashdot headline.
      • by sjames ( 1099 )

        How about replace income tax with a gasoline tax that costs about as much on average?

      • In other words, a wise politician (by wise, I mean a politician who wishes to remain in office) will vocally claim to support AGW remedies, while actively opposing with his/her votes anything that would be effective.

        Carry on, wayward sons/daughters.
        • Why would things like taxing gasoline or electricity be effective? I don't drive because I want to, I drive because I have to, same with heating my house. Additional taxes on things like gasoline and electricity just hurt me without providing any tangible benefit.
  • by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Friday January 30, 2015 @04:47PM (#48942723) Homepage
    most americans also support "action" on a lot of things. it does not mean most americans have any idea what the right things to do are.

    remember, polls can be made to say whatever you want them to. Follow the money and see whos actually funding the poll to know what the desired outcome is.
    • Which is supported by the prior Slashdot post about how scientists and the general public are often at opposite sides of things. Those that took the poll need to reconcile their numbers with the numbers from the other poll that said most people don't believe in human-caused global warming. I find it hard to believe that if most people don't believe in it, they would only vote for politicians that supported it ....

      • Those that took the poll need to reconcile their numbers with the numbers from the other poll that said most people don't believe in human-caused global warming.

        What other poll? Citation please.

        • Never mind. I see you meant the story on the public vs. scientists.

          • Keep in mind, though, that the polls asked different questions. One asked whether human activity was partly responsible for climate change. The other asked whether human activity was primarily responsible for it.

  • by bhlowe ( 1803290 ) on Friday January 30, 2015 @04:57PM (#48942801)
    Support is fine until it comes out of a paycheck.. then, no flipping way. Watch what happens when Walmart shoppers are asked to pay higher prices for higher wages: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
  • So what? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 30, 2015 @05:11PM (#48942907)

    Most Americans support government action on labeling food products that contain DNA. These surveys are worthless.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Personally, I'd love government action on labeling ALL food products that DON'T contain DNA. It'd be nice to be able to separate the ultra-refined or synthetic foods from the real thing.

    • Any honest person involved in surveys knows how easily they can be manipulated. That doesn't make surveys worthless. It just means that if you want to trust the results then you need to know who did the survey, why they did it, who paid for it, how they chose the subjects, etc. i.e. you need to know the methods. Of course, this is often lacking but it doesn't have to be.
  • by Kunedog ( 1033226 ) on Friday January 30, 2015 @05:21PM (#48942989)
    I'm trying to download the poll document pdf and all I get is some Democrat advertising invoice.
  • Now, if only they could do something about the number of people who keep voting for assholes who break campaign promises, then campaign promises to do something about climate change might actually matter.

    • by JustNiz ( 692889 )

      That would automaitcally solve itself if most American voters would stop voting from partisan habit and against the party they least want, to actually voting for the person they do want.

  • by Nutria ( 679911 ) on Friday January 30, 2015 @05:23PM (#48943013)

    "Nonpartisan" means that Resources For The Future doesn't officially support the Democrat party. Everyone who works there, however, voted Green or for Obama.

    IOW, it's effectively partisan.

    • IOW, it's effectively partisan.

      So what? That doesn't inherently mean its wrong. Maybe you could point out flaws in their selection of republicans for their survey instead of worthless partisan speculation.

  • by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Friday January 30, 2015 @05:27PM (#48943043)

    Politicians don't pay attention to voters. They follow the money. Koch et al who are making big bucks from fossil fuels control the politicians.
    You can find similar polls on other topics... gun control, health care, education, etc. Politicians vote for the policies of their donors.
    The US has the most corrupt political system... it's really fascism where the corporations and the rich control the government.

  • Then research on the other side of the coin is invalid as well. You can't have it both ways.

    Also, "New York Times study" lol.

  • by Tokolosh ( 1256448 ) on Friday January 30, 2015 @05:58PM (#48943243)

    Government Action can be anything - building seawallls and dykes, seeding the ocean with iron, mandating living in caves, resettling populations, handing out vouchers, giving contracts to lobbyists, doing nothing, adopting policies to reduce carbon emissions.

    But this is never stated, which is damn annoying. Most people automatically assume the last option, which may well be the worst option, and then arguing over the details.

    There is much bloviating over how much science has gone into proving AGW. But there is very little science indeed as to the optimal response.

    • But there is very little science indeed as to the optimal response.

      Indeed. Personally I'd favor just using pigovian taxes to ensure that all costs are internalized and then using the money to fund tax credits for energy efficiency improvements. That would likely solve the majority of the problem right there.

  • by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Friday January 30, 2015 @06:11PM (#48943289)

    These show the frightening level of ignorance about science in the general US population:
    http://news.nationalgeographic... [nationalgeographic.com]
    http://www.pewinternet.org/201... [pewinternet.org]
    Depending on which study you look at, apparently only 40% - 66% of Americans even believe evolution is real. What are you guys smoking over there?

  • by pubwvj ( 1045960 ) on Friday January 30, 2015 @06:22PM (#48943343)

    "Most X Support Y" is such a lame argument for doing anything.

    Most people here would like to kick your ass but that doesn't mean we should.

    Most drivers on the freeway would like to speed but that doesn't mean the should.

    Most kids support not brushing their teeth but that doesn't mean they should skip it.

    Most people would like a double-wopper-hopper burger with extra fries but that doesn't mean they should eat it never mind every day.

    Most people supporting something is a lame argument for anything.

    Stop rationalizing and get rational.

    • "Most X Support Y" is such a lame argument for doing anything.

      Most people here would like to kick your ass but that doesn't mean we should.

      Most drivers on the freeway would like to speed but that doesn't mean the should.

      Most kids support not brushing their teeth but that doesn't mean they should skip it.

      Most people would like a double-wopper-hopper burger with extra fries but that doesn't mean they should eat it never mind every day.

      Most people supporting something is a lame argument for anything.

      Stop rationalizing and get rational.

      Most people wanting to speed means most people think getting somewhere faster is a good thing.

      Most people wanting a burger means most people think burgers are tasty.

      And most people supporting government action on climate change means most people think climate change is a real problem.

      So despite your dismissal this poll (if accurate) is important.

      It shifts the question from "Is Climate Change a problem?" to "What is the appropriate response to this problem?"

      Now you can still argue that "nothing" is the appro

  • This kind of study is hard on the deniers because it begins moving them toward Flat Earth Society status. In a democracy, the minority just doesn't matter very much once the majority has made up its mind. They stop being a part of the conversation. The only way they will be able to get back into the conversation is to start drawing lines in the sand saying what they will and will not give up. And that will be a good thing. We need to start talking about the tradeoffs that we will have to make.

MS-DOS must die!

Working...